Good evening everyone. This is the regular meeting of the municipalities board of bur river for Wednesday, February 11, 2026. Time now is 7:32 p.m. This meeting of the municipalities board of bur river is being held both in person and remotely via zoom in
complying to the provisions of the open public meetings act associated regulations. Notice that this hybrid meeting was published in the burden record, posted at burough hall and posted on the burough's website. The notice included the dial in and login information necessary for public participation and access to this
meeting. Copy of the agenda for this meeting was made available on the bureau's website near the posting of the meeting notice and included the dial in and login information. During the public comment period of this meeting, if you would like to make a public comment, you may step up to the
microphone and wait to be recognized by the chairperson. Press the raise hand button on Zoom or dial star 9 on your telephone keypad to raise your hand. You may mute and unmute yourself by pressing the microphone icon on Zoom or dialing star six on your telephone keypad. You
must state your name and address clearly prior to making the public comment. Please stand and I aliance of the United States and to the republic for which it stands.
One nation under God, indivisible, liberty, justice for all. >> Let's call >> Mr. >> Here. >> Mr. >> Here, >> Mr. Fra >> here. >> Miss Bolan >> here.
>> Mr. D >> here. >> Mr. >> Here, Mr. >> Here, >> Mr. here. >> Here >> and >> here. >> Also present, we have our board planner,
Mr. Baron, and our new board secretary, Jeff. >> Since we have that on the agenda, see, welcome. >> Thank you. >> Have you here forward to working with you find we're easy to work with.
>> Thank you. collect forward. Um, at this time, uh, I'd like to ask for a moment of silence in memory former board member, uh, Dick Burman. As you know, Dick unfortunately passed away last
week. Dick was a fixture of this board for a very long time, 198 1988 to 2025. Dick sat in his chair from 1993 to 95
and was my right hand for u 2017 to 2025 some of my time during that period. But Dick was a tremendous asset to this board as you well know chance that chance to work directly with him. uh the
level of detail which he approached each and every application was meticulous measured looked at all angles kept the uh the the board's interest the town's interest and the applicant's
interest in a in a very measured balanced fashion. they're looking at all of the facts and um information in any given application and the the I I think fair is probably an understatement to to
attach to Dick. Um and certainly he was fair with with the applicants professionals and calling them on the carpet for you know ensuring that their plans were detailed because that's the way Dick was was a detailed guy and we he wanted to make sure that
professionals were held to as high state as he himself. So, um, at this point I I'll open the floor to what the safety was about. >> Uh, Dick Murman was just really a
fixture of edge and great person to call for historical knowledge and uh, for an honest and thorough response on anything. I was glad to work with him all these years. Um I've been elected official for during
my 15th year and um he's just he's just a fixture over edge and a fixture of devotion for the town, commitment to the town and he will be missed. We were honored as council and I am mayor to
recognize him at a meeting not so long ago where we gave him a plaque about a year ago and uh um he shall be I think was one of the reasons I'm sitting here now. Um you know he was
definitely a mentor to all of us. He helped me learn more about what this job is and actually encouraged me to actually go visit sites on occasion when it was warranted. Um, you know, and I know he taught a lot of us so many things about doing the right thing up here, you know, and like you said, for
the applicant, for the the town, for everyone. Um, and he definitely sort of >> I think there's just one other thing I'd like to add aside from all his technical came in and all the work he did, how dedicated he was, he was feisty.
I always That's the memory I have. I have a feeling that a fair number of applicants invol. At this time, we're going to move forward in our agenda. We're going to uh modify the order slightly. We're going
to move to swing in of new appointments with our class members who will be sworn in for a new one this term. >> Sure. Uh councilman, if you please stand. You raise your right hand and repeat
after me. I state your name. David, I David Glass, >> do solemnly swear >> do solemnly swear >> that I will faithfully >> that I will faithfully >> impartially >> impartially >> and justly >> and justly >> perform all the duties >> perform all the duties >> of the office of
>> of the office of >> class three member >> class three member >> of the Burough River Edge >> of the Burough River Edge >> municipal land use board >> municipal land use board >> to the best of my ability >> to the best of my ability and that I
will support the Constitution >> and that I will support the Constitution >> of the United States >> of the United States >> and the Constitution >> and the Constitution >> of the State of New Jersey >> of the State of New Jersey. and that I will bear true faith >> and that I will bear true faith >> and allegiance
>> and allegiance >> to the same >> to the same >> and to the governments established >> and to the government established >> in the United States >> in the United States >> and in this state >> and in this state >> under the authority of the people >> under the authority of the people.
>> Thank you. >> Thank you. >> Welcome back. >> Thank you chairman Happy to be here. Honored to be here. Excellent. Um this time,
>> I'm just going to make an announcement. On our agenda, we have um old Bold Business Matter IAT Services LLC. an application um related to 41 Grand Avenue block 1405 lot 4 for preliminary
and final site plan approval with use height and both variance relief to construct and operate a double base static billboard sign on a single monle. Um the applicant and the objectors councils have requested that this hearing the hearing on this application
be carried to the February 25th 2026 meeting um without further notice. So if you are here for that application um it will be heard again on February 25th 2020.
>> Yes. >> Okay. At this point, we're going to move back up in our agenda. We're going under discussion items. Item two uh for our affordable housing compliance and housing element and fair share plan updates from our board planner Tom
Barrett. Just give me a moment. I don't want to get set up here. So for the purposes of facilitating this update, I I did a very brief >> need to activate mic >> on my end or >> just do it on the
>> So I I am connecting via Zoom. So I was trying to avoid the double mic issue. >> I try I promoted you to it >> and then just mute your computer and turn down that You can turn your video off too. And then
we have that. So feel free to look at the screen behind you and screen this way. And again, I I thought just having some visuals would help facilitate this conversation. So Tom Baron's board planner with Burgess Associates. We've been helping the burough address its affordable housing obligations since the
third round. We are now in the midst of the fourth round of the state's affordable housing obligations which officially began in July of 2025 will last for the period uh until June 30th, 2035. So essentially for a 10-year
period uh we were last before the board on June 25th of 2025 at which the uh this board adopted the borrow's fourth round housing element and fair share plan to address um its its obligations at the time. Uh I'll explain a little
bit about the process uh where we are um some some changes and updates and outstanding tests for the board uh moving forward. I will say that um since we last met, we've been working with the council to resolve some issues which I'll explain. And so, you know, a lot of
this as it involved litigation had to be uh wasn't able to be publicized essentially until now. But again, I'll I'll go through the process and explain sort of where we are and what we need to do and why. Uh essentially, we're still dealing with this at this point. So process-wise, you may recall, and I'm
not going to dive too deep into the history, but basically the state came up with a brand new process for how it would assign municipal affordable housing obligations. That was as recent was March 2024. Uh again, there had been a prior process, which worked fairly well for round one and two. Round three,
um the state tried to come up with a new process, basically ended up in litigation, was a nightmare. The borrow got through that. um you know, we came up with a couple planning options that worked out pretty well and here we are on the fourth round and every municipality that that's participating uh in this fourth round was all trying
to make sense of this new uh legislation uh by virtue of the Fair Housing Act that was amended uh by the state signed by Governor Murphy in March 2024 which was frankly filled with ambiguity in some cases and left with towns trying to understand what the requirement was
and how the process would work. Frankly, none of the participants quite knew how things would play out. So, it was, you know, totally an evolution and things have evolved since we last met as a group in June of uh 2025. So, the state after the legislation was adopted,
assigned municipalities their individual affordable housing obligation October 2024, you may recall, the state comes up with a total statewide obligation of what it thinks the state owes from an affordable housing standpoint for the 10-year period. came up with a number of about 85,000 affordable units statewide.
That trickles down into regions. River edges in region one and that regional number then trickles down to municipal obligation. So our assigned municipal obligation from the um from the DCA was 159 units again for the four round
period. By January 31, the borrow complied by accepting the obligation of the number that was assigned by CA again that 159 number. Um there was a period where if you didn't accept that number that that could be challenged. That wasn't an issue for us. So we went ahead
and adopted a housing element fair share plan on June 25th again of 2025 to address what what we understood our number to be at that time. Interested parties had until August 31st to challenge any municipal plan. And throughout the state there were
challenges all over. There's an affordable housing advocate group essentially a lobbyist by the name of fair share housing center that challenged over 400 I think 420 something municipal plans and challenge rivers. So basically any any town that adopted a plan the plan was challenged
with with very few exceptions and I'll explain what that means for us. Um so where we are in the process is that we we made it through the challenge period. We worked through our issues with Fair Share Housing Center who was the sole challenger to our plan and had some
technical issues and we worked through what was called the affordable housing dispute resolution program uh which entailed a former Mount Royal judge and a special adjudicator formerly special master who was essentially a licensed planner. So the the judge and adjudicator were the mediators in this
process where the barrell was one party and fair share housing center was another party. we locked out and that we didn't have any developer objectors or challengers where other municipalities had 15 or it got pretty crazy for some of the other towns that we worked with. So we were lucky and that we only had
this one challenger. Um so those issu issues were resolved culminated in a settlement mediation agreement with Fair Share Housing Center between the burrow which was finally executed in January 7th uh 2025 2026 which I'll explain. So,
at this point, we're in the uh approaching a March 15, 2026 deadline whereby municipalities must adopt any ordinances that implement the plan. So, we haven't adopted any ordinances to date, knowing that there there would be this challenge period, likely a mediation period. So, I I'll get into
what we owe and by when, just letting you know where we are. Then once we get through that down the line, assuming we we submit everything, this board and the council adopt the various documents, we'll be eligible for compliance certification from the maloral judge. So every municipality is assigned a mural
judge to look at your case to see what's done to see that you comply with the law. And the significance of that, the question is well, why are we participating in this process is that at the end of that, a compliance certificate certification gets you immunity um from what are called builder lawsuits. So if you don't have that
certification, basically any developer come in at will pick a site and say town you haven't complied with your state uh your constitutional obl it's a constitutional obligation. So we're here to do that for you and by the way we're going to exceed your town zoning because you haven't done anything. So oftent
times develop a developer will pick a site let's say your zoning allows two stories they'll end up at four stories for example and a lot more units um than you would normally allow or contemplate. So the immunity allows the municipalities to retain control over their zoning. So while we've had to bend
a little bit in certain areas again I'll explain that. Um in general the immunity preserves our zoning for the most part again for the last 10 years. So we don't have to be worried about um you know sites coming online which there are sites that arise periodically. So I think we are a little bit more
vulnerable in that regard. So and it was our recommendation that the burl stay the course and secure immunity. So without further ado, I'll just give an overview of the fair share obligation just as a reminder. So again, the DCA gave a fourth round present need to
rehabilitation obligation of of 32 units. Um that so that that pertains to rehabing existing units. That's the number the state gave. Um they gave us a perspective obligation of 159 affordable units. So that that's essentially the number that they're saying river owes.
So you have to build 159 new affordable units in that 10-year period which translates to um the number basically five times that number when you do it in inclusionary setting whereby you have essentially four market rate units to one to four people. That's the standard ratio. So that's the that's the amount
of housing activity the state indicated that we have to develop. We're not doing that. Just to be clear and I'll explain how that plan is able to reduce that impact because again the overall arcing goals of of this participation was one compliance to to the immunity and two to
do it in a way that minimized impacts in in every single case. So, first off, we were able to adjust the rehabilitation obligation from 32 units to sorry this creates coverage to 70 units and that was done by structural condition survey where uh in coordination with the
construction official did a drive around town to see how many units actually qualify and so we established our rehabilitation obligation of seven units. Um in the past we've satisfied this obligation with working with the home improvement program in Bergen County. We expect to
do the same. So we we're hoping we can work with them to take care of that obligation for us. Now while we had the the larger number of 159 units, we were able to adjust that number through what's called the vacancy land analysis. We did that successfully in the third round where basically there's certain
criteria you look at minimum land area threshold and sites that are impacted by environmental constraints and sites that are uh vacant or undeveloped essentially. And because the burrow has no land that qualifies for that, that number, what's called a realistic development potential that considers
that criteria is zero units. And again, that was the same number for the third round. River Edge didn't make any new land. There's no new vacant sites. So effectively that adjusted our perspective need obligation from 159 to zero. Story doesn't end there. So it
gets a little more complicated. So, a new feature of this fourth round legislation was is this sort of ambiguous redevelopment requirement where it said that towns had to towns that sought an adjustment through a vacant land analysis had to consider sites likely to redevelop. This is a
mouthful. Uh to address a portion of its unmet need and that number would be be calculated based on the perspective need that was adjusted. And so there there were all there were four different interpretations statewide um as to what that action meant. We took one position that basically said well if you think
about it that you know from a common sense perspective from a literal perspective it would mean 25% of your realistic development potential. Another interpretation which um talents tended to descend along was this 25% of the unmet need. I know I'm using a lot of
jargon so I'll try to explain it and I understand if you have questions. Young man need is the difference between state number and your adjusted realistic development potential. So the difference between 159 and zero in our case is 159. So the interpretation of 25% of that 25%
of 159 rounds. So that became the magic number that we had to try to satisfy in order to uh have a successful mediation through the program with fair share housing center. And ultimately we were able to do that and I'll explain how how we got there in just a moment. So just a
very brief overview of how we satisfied the third round just so you recall um included units from the senior residents at St. Peters 18 units of the 23 units there. The reason we couldn't use all of them is because there's a senior uh crank cap of 25 units to 25%. We also
have three existing group homes. one at 11 June Court, one at 200 Sub Zerski Place, and one at 328 Valley Road. And in the third round, the burrow also adopted two new redevelopment plans. One for the new bridge landing station redevelopment area, which is essentially
both sides of the the new bridge landing train station that partially owned by NJ Transit and partially owned by the burrow. And then we had Kinder Kamak the road redevelopment area which is uh essentially where uh let it grow headquarters is as well as the adjacent
launch map at the corner of Aerson and Kathle. So that's how we addressed our our third round plan in full secure immunity up until the for this is just an aerial image of the uh new bridge landing redevelopment area just for uh orientation purposes. So again, both
sides of the tracks and let's look through these quickly because you've seen them and this is the kind of redevelopment area again where let it grow has its operations. There's a smaller vac parcel that kind of triangle but the one that bus route four
and lot five is the one that's developed with the larger map. So without further ado getting to the plan and and the basis of our negotiations with Fairshare Housing Center uh in consultation with the council, this is the uh compliance plan
um that got us to the uh 40 unit number that that won the program and system we we had to get to as well as the special adjudicator. So I I will say that we we did our best to try to uh again will down the impact and and to try to uh you
know comply with you know the fewest amount of units throughout the town and this is what what we came up with. It was all took consideration of sites that that pro you know from all perspectives would be the best redevelopment sites in the town. It's if you had to pick a site
these sites make the most sense from a an availability standpoint as well as an impact standpoint. So the first line item on the chart is just are just the surplus credits from the St. Peters uh senior residents. Again, we have the five left over from the 23 units uh that
are there. We have the new bridge crossing uh development. This is just to be clear, this is an existing development. That's the one that's the new apartment building on Kinder Kamak Road just south of Holland. That's a 69 unit development with seven senior units. That's developed that's occupied
that's not new. Um, a new zoning feature of this compliance plan is what's known as the Johnson Avenue overlay zone. Um, and I'll show you an airfield image just to orient you. Um, it's essentially on the south side of Route 4, pretty much disconnected from the rest of the
burrow, but within walking distance to the train station. Um, it's across from is it Prime 59 is the steakhouse there. And so it's it's developed with a hodgepodge of essentially industrial uses of what had been a retail store. uh and my math indicates that it's about
1.57 acres in the area. So um the the idea uh or the agreement rather was that there would be an overlay zone which means that you keep the existing zoning in place and that site in particular is in the burrow C2 zone which allows for a
variety of commercial uses. an overlay zone, it becomes an optional uh zoning framework where the property owner has the option to develop that um in an effort to promote affordable housing. And again, that this is a a mechanism um
that was that was used as a compromise. The residential density there if if this overlay zone um is exercised would be 40 units per acre and would require at least 20% of those units to have affordable housing. Um if that were built out that would result in 13
affordable housing and that's in an ordinance that the burough council will have to adopt by March 15. The second the or rather the fourth line item is what we're calling North Kore zone and again I'll give you an overview of these in just a moment that um encompasses the
Riverdale filling station which is kind road at the extreme north end of town as well as the adjacent Verizon site. Uh and that's another overlay zone where again the underlying commercial zoning is not being removed. We have to create what the law requires is that you create the opportunity. The burrow has to
create the opportunity. Doesn't have to pick a developer, doesn't have to come up with a plan. It just has to put the zoning in place to say that when and if it gets developed, it can produce some amount of affordable housing. So given the sensitivity of that area um that it abuts single family homes to the west on
Summit Avenue that it has a much lower density there of 15 units per acre and 20% affordable housing set aside if built out if that whole site were built out it's a little over two acres that would result in seven affordable units. The next um mechanism is an existing
plan mechanism from the third round. Again this is the new bridge landing station redevelopment plan. the the adjustment here um is is simply adjusting the density upwards from 25 units per acre that's in the existing plan that was adopted. So it's in place today increasing that to 36 units per
acre and that would result in a total of 29 affordable units. The next is what's called the affordable housing one overlay zone which is an existing u overlay zone that covers um the on new
bridge road the VP gas station the virtual golf um simulator facility and the adjacent plant store. Um so again those businesses can remain. We're not saying they have to leave, but zoning is now in place that when if those sites ever developed, they could be developed
with housing that uh the only change there was increasing the density from 20 units per acre, 25 units per acre. And then finally, we have another existing zoning that is the multif family and senior conditional use zone. That's that's the undeveloped part on Kinder
Kamak Road where that the threetory um apartment building is on Kinder Kamak Road. All all the area on the we'll call it the east side of Kinder Kamak Road that's north of that development up to Howland Avenue is in this zone that exists today and that was created I
think sometime around 2009 if I'm not mistaken. The only adjustment there is increasing the affordable requirement from 15% to 20%. Um and the only other thing we have to do is um in the third round we had to create or adopt what's
called a mandatory affordable set aside ordinance which means that any development that we haven't specifically identified if there's housing development of five units or more that occurs anywhere else then it would capture some amount of affordable housing. The ordinance currently reads that a rental project would have to have
15% affordable housing requirement. That's being increased 20%. And this is sort of a standard municipal requirement across the board and almost every town we're aware of is adjusting their ordinance similar. So it's sort of a standard um ordinance that that towns
are relying on. So I'm going to go site by sight. We can stop and pause where we need to. This is an existing um senior housing at St. Peters. It's you know if you're looking at the church it's it's uh attached to essentially the school building 23 units. I believe it it
functions as a senior think qualifies as assisted living but nevertheless it counts as senior affordable housing. The next as I've alluded to a few times is this new bridge crossing development. Again this is the one on Kinder Kamak Road south of Holland on the east side of Kinder Kamak Road. It exists. We're
taking credit for it as it includes some number of affordable units. This is the the new overlay zone on Johnson Avenue that was I was referencing. So you have Route 4 to the north, you have Johnson Avenue to the left, and I forget the name of the
street currently. And and the site itself is biseected from Hackinack. So the border of Hackinack is immediately south of the site. Um I mentioned again, it's about 1.57 acres. It would include all five of those parcels. And again,
the idea is that if that site were to be developed with residential development, it would have that zoning programming of 40 units per acre. um that that a developer in theory could take uh could could develop the site. Um I'm going to
pause there because this this is something the board has not uh before. Does anyone have any questions? >> Why did you say 40 per acre for that? >> 43. >> So just on on a site like this, the developer can't come in and not abide by
our zoning because we're doing this. So they still have to abide by whatever number you said before. >> Yeah. The purpose is to set a ceiling and say this is what you can do. And again, this is an area that that would seem to be right for development. I know it's been discussed for a long time. It's in close proximity train station.
And it was identified through the participants of this program as again if you had to pick a spot in River to um you know provide zoning for affordable housing that this stood out as being a reasonable location. Just as a benchmark, if I recall correctly, new
bridge crossings is about 37 units per acre. Is that right? >> For for reference, right? So, >> that's a good bench. >> So, this site right here is approximately 37.5. >> That gives you like a benchmark. >> So, when you right when you think about scale and parking requirements, etc., it
would be >> So, so they have to abide by all of our zoning. They can't just come in and say we're doing what we want because we're doing what we >> because we have that immunity. And that's the importance of the immunity is that they have any prospective developer has to abide by the laws and that is the purpose of all this and and again when
you look around the south end of town and even come back road you start to say that these things could be redeveloped because there is a market frankly for housing right so the goal was to try to control um control zoning and minimize the impact of you know the existing community so this was a site that was
selected um in in that process I'll move along So, I'll I'll open it up for question. Um, the next site is uh what what's being referenced as the North Kak overlay zone. That's the area highlighted in yellow. To the extreme north of that area is the border with
Borell. Um the the northernmost parcel is the Riverdale filling station which actually occupies uh two adjacent lots lot 2.01 and I believe that site in total is about 1 acre if I'm not mistaken. And
then just south of that is a surface parking lot building um that's historically been occupied by Verizon. Again, this was a site that was identified by uh through this process with the program participants where this site varies from the other one. Obviously, there is surrounding development. The lots are a bit smaller.
It's a little more um congested is not the right word, but but developed in this area. And so the thought was that a lower scale density would be more appropriate to minimize impacts or really vent any impacts from from uh surrounding residential
development in particular and the cond development format would be in either multif family or um mixed use format. So that's that's essentially what the zoning option would allow. So again there's no no developer has been selected. Um this is just to create the
opportunity an extra zoning alternative that could produce a portable house. And just just to be clear, so these lots are a little bigger than the other one. So if someone owned, you know, I guess you said the filling station is on the top two lots.
>> So if someone wanted to take those two lots and develop those, they would be abiding have to or they would be able to take advantage, I guess, of the >> they would be able to right develop in accordance with that zone. >> So you don't need to use all. You can use some if they
>> Oh, right. Right. Right. You can use part of the zoning. Um you know you could for instance just develop the river del station. So that would be one option >> or or you could develop it as what the existing zone. Correct. >> Right. The underlying commercial zoning
would remain. >> Right. So someone doesn't if someone's going to develop that they don't have to use this. >> That's correct. >> So they just they could build another gas station there you know or >> Yes. that that that option. Right. So so nothing is being stripped away as far as development potential. what's currently
allowed. So this is just an added option that the state requires deception. You have to create zoning mechanisms that allow affordable housing to be felt in reasonable ways or totally reasonable ways. >> Yes,
there's there's a target u that's in the plan of how many units would be in this this this I'm going to guess that those target numbers exceed what we would typically
do within our zone. >> Well, for this site in particular, zoning today actually doesn't allow residential development. So, we took a look at what are the different iterations that that could somehow allow, you know, residential here. I think if you look at the filling station, that's another site. It's a
gateway to town. They go I think everyone that drives by goes, you know, that could be better. and and so you know there's a market for only certain types of uses in River based on more financing to be demand for housing in River. Um,
so it it seems sensible that this site was identified as one that could be redeveloped and it would check a number of boxes from a planning standpoint being that it would develop a site that's underutilized um, you know, uh, be a drastic aesthetic improvement, you know, for game the community and then
also satisfy a portion of the borrow's affordable housing obligations and alleviate pressure elsewhere. for that if the target number um
exceeds what our zoning would wins. >> Yeah, it's not it's not it's not really a target. It's just what we would allow. >> It's a maximum what the zoning would be. There would be new zoning allowable, >> right? So,
>> it's not a target. It's what would be allowed. Cap. >> But it's a cap. That's another way, >> right? But but we I thought the goal here was so that our zoning would be utilized. So it's not actually it's what
we agreed to here. It's right the zoning currently doesn't exist right and and through this process through um you know working with the different participants that that a new zone will a new zoning option be created. >> So the goal is not to um the goal as you
stated is not with what what we were doing. The goal is to prevent us from losing immunity and for the public sake. What that would mean is so say there was didn't go for um the settlement state and the horal um
fair share >> fair share housing um then we would we would not be living up to what the state expected of us. The owner could come in say buy a lot and say that lot just happen to be a residential area and say well I'm going to build a sevenstory
apartment building right next to a single family home. We have little option other than to enter into a court case with them which we would lose to some extent we could not. This is not development that is going to happen.
This is development that could happen, but we control the zone. And so in some places when we say there's an overlay zone, what we're doing is saying there's now zoning option A, zoning option B for
just that area. So um so it could conceivably go as much as uh 40 * 5 is 200, right? We have to do 40, >> right? If if we look at that target
affordable housing 40* 5, right? >> No, no. Disperse throughout these various sites that that we I you know the chart that I showed, if you added that all up, >> what's the maximum that >> 15 units per acre on two acres? It's about 30 total units, give or take.
>> 30. So affordable would be >> 20% of that. >> 20% of that. And Oh, >> I'm sorry. And and if if whatever structure was being built on that unit to get to that number needed
to exceed our height ordinance, would that >> Well, I I think we're going to do it in a way that does not impact uh particularly residents on summit. We know that's sensitive issue with this building and so I I think we're probably
going to keep it at two at the current height. That's I think that's the goal we said. >> But if a developer wants to come in and say, "I want to put all these units in and it's going to like really come in and satisfy your thing. The only thing stopping me is your height requirement." What happens?
>> Well, whatever ordinance we adopt, it's going to have to make sense from a dimensional standpoint. And so that's something we're looking at even though this has to be resolved in short order. So it from that perspective this zoning has to be realistic therefore um and we believe that that will be within that
limitation. >> So so the town is going to be introducing an ordinance to create this overlay zone. That ordinance is going to be referred to the signing board for master science consistency review. Um, and then it'll go back to the council to
be adopted. If it's adopted at whatever the height, whatever the height is set or whatever the bulk requirements are set in, that overlay, and somebody comes in and they want to go crazy, they're still going to have to come to this board and get reviewed again and say, "Well, we gave
you all these extras in this overlay zone, and now you're still trying to go beyond them. Why they still have to prove their variance and all their >> but if our ordinance doesn't allow them to meet what the state of go is then are we just putting that in the way is that
a posible >> our ordinance has to be practical but yeah so we can't create an ordinance that won't allow them to achieve it however for instance in this particular site we
have the Verizon building that is an active I can't imagine it going away for the next 50 100 years. So even though it's one of the areas, it probably will not be developed in our lifetime or our
children's life, but we still were required by the state of New Jersey to do this. Now you might also realize notice that Tom mentioned that all this has to be done by Marshall Keith. That is not our fault. That is not the fault of the
seven municipalities of Bernie County or the 56 565 municipalities of the state of New Jersey. That is a requirement that the state legislature gave us and it's a
parody type. So whatever ordinance we're working on is going to make sure to like talk about this is for this particular and it doesn't affect any other ordinance >> it would be it's sight specific. >> Also just keep in mind we're we only
offered 15 units per acre here so they can't go above that. >> Well that's the affordable house right? >> No that's the density >> that's the total density total >> right of it is affordable. How many of that?
all is 2.13 question I was trying to ask which is use the phrase we control don't and and that's where you know because but we control don't end unless we're not meeting somebody else
>> one of the parameters that they give >> false >> but you also have to consider there's areas in town where you are allowed to have commercial property and not so we already have areas where the zoning is So it's just having another area where it's a little bit different to allow something like this.
>> But I understand the confusion is that well you're saying we're controlling it but we're changing. So how how do you square that? So the reason is that the whole reason the whole state program was designed to circumvent zoning to >> essentially fast track out you know in in frankly disorganized way. So
essentially we're being crows but we if if we work with them we get to maintain some control. So we're giving them enough room. But you your example on the the hypothetical of a sevenstory village somebody
>> if we lost community that could be very easily done where a developer comes in and says River Edge has these great schools has this great reputation and I can talk people into selling their
houses and so I I come together six lots and now I'm in a for apartment building but I want to 50 people per acre. So I'm going to put it seven stories and and you only have to go to doctors in other places where you can see things like that happen.
>> But we would need the immunity to prevent that >> once we still have we have immunity now. As long as we maintain immunity, the developer can't come in and simply say too bad, so sad. We're going to do whatever we want. And as as our friend
now, our our attorney Brown said, um, we now get to negotiate with them. Say they come with development that we think is pretty good, but uh they they need this sewage, they need the this, and they want us to pay for it. We should say,
well, you know, we'll negotiate that with you like we've always done streetscape, things like that. So we maintain the ability to keep river edge river edge. If we do not do this within one divided by it current legislation
then we lose that would be devastating and and a site like this you know we say all right try to do two stories so we don't block the view of people on Summit Avenue. Someone comes in they're putting it four stories and now that person on Summit is looking at an apartment building. So stopping
that by you know because that would be a decent option for something easier than buying you know six adjoining lots on well and just the most extreme local examples of clips they basically dug their deals in and said we're not going to participate in all this and they had
arentice hall which was a publisher there and there was a developer that wanted to develop the site because the burrow wasn't willing to negotiate at all basically um The court at that time retained control of the process. They ended up with hundreds more units than the developer was proposed. So more than
the developer had proposed and beyond that the um the court adjudicator planner working for the state um became the planning uh reviewer. So the planning board lost all control of the whole process. >> So they take over all.
>> So that's an extreme case but that's you don't want to end up there >> for historical reference. When this thing first was registered, I'm assuming it was fought on the grounds of government.
>> Yeah, it's a long and tortured history that starts in 1970. I'll give you the two version. It's worth it for anybody who might see this video. Did you just give a twominute version to Mount Laurel? And >> I think in our in our June in the June
updated fair plan, it did provide a rigid specific overview and a little bit of the Mount Laurum. I don't know if you >> I don't know that anybody would recreate that. people will look at the Facebook
the Zoom version on YouTube. So if you just >> where did this come from? Right. I'll give you the bullet points for history though. >> I I think it was 1975 was when the first Mount Laurel decision was writed by the state supreme court known as Moro one.
And what happened there was essentially there was a group of um uh people in Malo who wanted to develop their land in a way that wasn't allowed by local zoning. They happen to be a African-American. There were some, you know, racist uh things happening.
Basically, they said can't afford to live here. Um you have to buy somewhere else to live. There's some other nasty things said. And so the issue worked its way all the way up to the Supreme Court with the help of the NAACP with Fair Share Housing Center. I think at the time the beginnings of what was fair sharehousing center and that issue was
litigated and they ended up winning and basically what the Supreme Court had decided was not just Mount Laurel but every municipality in the state of New Jersey had to provide for its fair share of affordable housing. Problem was they didn't indicate what fair share meant. So years go by no town does anything because they don't know what this this
requirement is but they determined it was a constitutional obligation. So you can't walk away from a constitutional obligation. So that was a very important piece of that determination. Years go by, I think it was, if I have my dates right, 1983, I think it's not moral 2. Um, where basically the Supreme Court, I
think it was there, early 80s, maze, the Supreme Court said, "Look, nothing's going New Jersey State Supreme Court, >> the New Jersey, >> right?" Basically noticed the inactivity at the municipal level and said, "Okay, we need to encourage the legislation to
act." So basically, Mule 2 was a nudge to the state legislature to say, "Hey guys, we have this constitutional obligation. you guys should really be administering this. So that prompted the state to adopt the 1985 fair housing act which created the whole framework for municipal obligations and created um the
state agency which was known as the council on affordable housing which was the agency in charge of administering all these municipal requirements fair the fair share housing obligations. So that entity COA then came up with the first round of regulations and state
requirements. That was for the period 1987 to 1993. So that was round one. Every town there's a state obligation and like in this period every every municipality got an obligation. Some towns participated, some didn't. River didn't happen to participate at that
time. That round worked out pretty well. Um uh you know towns got immunity, they got certified participated. Then there's a second round uh that was from 1993 to 1999. Also worked out pretty well because it was administered clearly by
the state. It was a clear set of rules. You had an agency that was relatively unbiased that understood the municipal side, understood the affordable housing side and so they were able to process things fairly well. Get to the to 1999 and COA decided to change the rules of course. So it went from what was called
a fair share methodology to a coral share methodology. So basically the calculations um to come up with the statewide number and then the municipal number they came up with a whole new way of calculating that number which ran a foul of um I guess constitutional uh that's um and
so that that issue was litigated over a period of years and they could the the co the council on affordable housing couldn't come up with a set of rules that could be validated by the Supreme Court and so finally they had one final opportunity to adopt rules and they had
a deadlock vote of three to three. So then at that time uh basically the court decided that they were defun that they weren't functioning as as was given their mandate um and so the court took over the rest of the third round. So basically from 2015 through 2025 was the
court process without clear rules where the numbers were argued. It was it was frankly a mess but River Edge was able to get out of that relatively unscathed and then there the state adopted this new fourth round legislation as recently as March 204. That's what created set
the new framework in motion where the state you know took over the process created this new program which included retired nural judges and had uh these special adjudicators who were planners and then finally not laural judge who would determine uh compliance at the end of the process. So again, we're
operating under that new fourth round process which is for the period 25 to 2035. So that's what what we're trying to address. Okay, >> succinct there's more to it in the plan if you're interested.
>> And on the website, if you go to the affordable housing page of the website, it has the most recent housing element fair share plan that has a very detailed >> a little more clear. Yeah, they don't. Yes. Um I'm just going to go through the rest of the sites here. So again, new
bridge landing station would just uptake the density. No other changes to the zone there, but that's an ordinance in the form of a redevelopment plan that that one line item has to be amended. This is that affordable housing one zone that again this currently exists. This is an existing zone where the density
will be increased from 20 units per acre to 25 units per acre. Again, that's the BP uh the south end the the golf uh training facility and the um what's now a plant store across from the student house. Those uses can remain. The
existing zoning can remain. What we were required to do and what's been in place for a number of years now is create this option, right? So, it could be developed in the future. >> Is that something that has to be advertised or just on the books? >> Um on the books. I mean, you create the zoning and that that's the obligation.
Well, it is being advertised in that there's going to be notice that's going up. There's going to be public hearings on these um ordinances and >> I'm probably jumping the gun for Tom, but we're going to have a public hearing on an amendment to our affordable
um our housing element fair plan in the next few which is also I think this is the last slide that last one. Doesn't that zone above wetlands over there? Is that an issue at all?
>> Um the northern end does um so I mean whoever would develop this would have to comply with state regulations but nevertheless the zone qualifies. >> Got and this again is an existing zone. It's it's tilted where the left is north and
the uh point of reference is that new bridge crossing development that exists and so the remainder of that zone is what's already in this existing multif family and senior conditional use zone which just has to remain session now it's created about 2009 that never
serves me. So just bring a little bit. So schedule wise moving forward. So at the board's next meeting two weeks from now, February 25th, we're going to ask the board to adopt um the amended housing plan. So we're basically taking the June plan. We're not reinventing the wheel
and we're going to update just the very specific sections about the changes that we just discussed. So I think there's one or two well there's about two those two new sites we discussed the changes to the density and just a little bit maybe two paragraphs on uh you know how
the process has evolved since June. On February 26th the mayor and council will introduce the various various ordinances we've discussed. March 11th the board will then have an opportunity to review for master board consistency those ordinances. And then finally on the next
day on March 12th mayor council will have to adopt those ordinances. this all occur within the March 15 statuto deadline. So I want to underline that we are under we do not have any leeway. So
um I know we all have to do and sometimes things come up but we really need a quorum um for both those meetings. So please keep that in mind if at all possible. February 25th meeting show up next.
>> Right. And and so the purpose of this work session was to discuss the changes ahead of time. So when you see that document go what is this? So you're not seeing it for the first time essentially. And I I know the the process is more perhaps more abbreviated than we like but that's a function of state process or bullsh. But I I think
this gets us to a good place for the burrow. It's in the best interest of the burrow to uh preserve that imity and take the Didn't we have the same basic plan last time we did it? Very compressed.
>> Well, right. So, it had to be adopted by June 30th except we didn't get our number until you know it wasn't like certified until that guard essentially. So, there there was a only a few months to try to work that out. And again because it was a new legis new
legislation we were everyone involved basically throughout the state was trying to make sense of what these requirements were and some of that is still being litigated for our purposes we didn't think the risk was worth you know it made more sense to just try to address what we could and move on from cross
>> I assume I knew the answer to this question there's no end to this >> not not just you know round four goes to round five to round six to round seven and I'm just going to keep this forever. >> One could anticipate that there will be a fifth round. I hope the current
legislation we have in place is modified that it's for a number of just you guys wonder the amount of money that's spent by this burough and towns across the state and the city itself how many houses you could have built.
>> I I don't disagree and there are towns in fact that are actually exempt from this requirement which might find interesting. So >> yeah, it just seems ridiculous that we're spending all this >> time, money, resources, and >> which towns, what are the standards? >> Well, so the the uh urban aid
communities, so Jersey City, Montlair, Bale, so um you know, some of these communities, not all are going by and bounds. They're technically not a part of just but their obligation gets redistributed
around such and so >> certification until 2035. So it's 10 years. October. So you should practically be done with this until >> if if we meet these March 15th deadlines. >> The the mal judge will review what we've
done. See that we've uh negot settled with fair share housing center and we very likely will get a compliance certification which secures immunity. So we have immunity today. We continue to do what we have to do. We'll keep that immunity for the next years forever. And then
there is a required midline review I believe where half in five years um we have the town has put together a report saying we adopted all these things in accordance with our plan. We're doing XYZ to try and achieve it. Some things
got developed, some things didn't. >> It's a progress report. That's again, we'll have a plan for the board to review, but again, it'll it'll largely reflect the plan that you've already seen adopted, but those change
questions. >> Thank you for your time. >> Yeah, thank you very much time and effort to do this. So, thank you. It's not easy. There are no members of public.
There members of public hearing questions, comments I was your drinking That one.